by Nate Chinen

08/14/2012

Image Krall

So this here is the cover of Diana Krall's new album, Glad Rag Doll, due out on Verve on Oct 2. This afternoon I posted it on Twitter, with a link to the Rolling Stone preview that marked its official unveiling. The response was, shall we say, the social-media equivalent of a raised eyebrow:

Now, maybe it's the death this week of Helen Gurley Brown, with her pioneering but problematic legacy of female glam-powerment — but I found myself wondering about the uniformity of this feedback, which (it must be said) came uniformly from male observers. Is there any reason to think Krall's female fan base might hold a different opinion? (Seriously, I'm asking.)

As you may know, Krall is 47, the mother of two children (twins), and the wife of Elvis Costello. By all accounts they are happily married; Costello did some playing on the new album, which was produced by his longtime pal T Bone Burnett. One could argue that her boudoir pose is a sex-positive move, a statement of smoldering purpose, even a courageous revamp of her image.

But Krall doesn't exactly make it easy to sympathize. "It was like I was a completely clean piece of canvas," she says in that RS story, suggesting the blank passivity of an object being acted upon, rather than an agent pursuing her own agenda. (The fact that it's her very first quote in the piece is damning, too, but let's remember that it was written and shaped by a dude.)

[Addendum: I should have mentioned this, from a press release: "Diana Krall has collaborated with Academy Award winning costume designer, Colleen Atwood and acclaimed photographer, Mark Seliger to create a series of beautiful and striking images for Krall's new album, "Glad Rag Doll". They are inspired by Alfred Cheney Johnston's pictures of the girls of the Ziegfeld Follies taken during the 1920s. Said Krall, 'If there was an era to which I could choose to go back in time, it would be the 1920s, just because of the whole wildness of it all.'"]

I'll have more to say about the music on the album at a later date, but today's, um, bombshell seemed to warrant some standalone commentary. I'd welcome more thoughts from the jazz patriarchy — and, even better, from some women, especially those sympathetic to Krall's situation. (Anyone?) I'll add that as a newish dad, I actually cringe-laughed in recognition at this next response, though that shouldn't be construed as any sort of endorsement:

19 Comments

Jazz, or Jas as it was first documented in New Orleans, was originally a euphemism for sexual connection, so to speak. If it wasn't, it was an outlier. Jelly Roll, Lemon, broadcaster- hundreds of words from the lexicon of Jazz have their origins in or refer to one aspect or another of that curious phenomenon of human life.

For a music that developed in brothels, many of its modern devotees seem to have taken a decided turn toward the philosophy of the Church Lady. Raising eyebrows?!? Shave 'Em Dry.

Thank you for a very thoughtful post about this album cover. As a woman, I raised an eyebrow and followed it with a shrug: Duana is a grown up and power to her. Seems to be the consensus amongst us self-identifying women on here.

I work with the LA Phil...so excited to see her play at Hollywood Bowl with the Orchestra coming up.

Without getting into a deep discussion about this photo, which I've seen and don't love, and its connected music, which I haven't yet heard, I will say this: Were the very same quote—about being a 'clean piece of canvas'—said by any number of male jazz musicians (say, Ambrose Akinmusire) I suspect it would have been taken as a statement of artistic openness.

Sorry, but Diana Krall's covers have nearly always emphasized sex appeal and sensuality--at least the last decade's worth or so have (not overtly, of course, but the particular dresses and poses have certainly had that subtext, with Mark Sigler being a master of subtlety in the tasteful handling of them all)--so what's the big deal about some not-very-erotic lingerie? Is someone afraid Diana's breaking new ground and perhaps using sex to sell music? Oh. My. God! NO!!!

Finally, not all that many of us at 47--men nor women--can look that good, so I really don't see the controversy here.

Hello Nate, the moment I read your "Addendum" and the provided context, I got it. I believe the communication is a clever way of personalizing the representation of where DK is now with her artful expression. If the idea of returning to another time is burning or has been smoldering in her for some time, then as artists know, it will hopefully come on out and be articulated. What better way to approach that fantasy than with such talented collaborators in the visual scheme. The rub here though might be the very context is framed (literally) down so tight, that that if you don't recognize the period wardrobe or the red velvet column bench as being motifs from the 1920's -- you will focus on the skin and pose. To that end, and leave it to the corporate marketing mind to do this, they have framed out the importance of the context for the immediacy of the sale. So, in other words, dress a larger set with 1920's art direction and put a piano from that time in it and widen the frame and the viewer has context and cues with which to process the entirety of the artistic statement in a single glance. It could still achieve the desired marketing affect of titillation and the all important goal of middle-age female empowerment while flushing out the complete idea. Rather than the artist hoping that someone buys the CD to engage the liner notes or reads a journalist who is wise and talented enough to color in the whole picture. Looking forward to hearing how DK, TB and EC bring that time to life musically through their talents. Hoping for a complete communication that delivers a warm afterglow!

Did any of you ever see the cover of the Tijuana Brass album "Whipped Cream"? It shows up in every stack of used LPs I see. It's a good cover. It attracts attention. The only bad publicity is no publicity. And what do you expect in an age when most advertising is aimed at your gonads and not your brains anyway!

Diana Krall has been amazingly lucky in her career. She is a more than adequate singer, she swings and she does a good job on the piano. The sexy business she has followed for many of her albums goes along with the way a lot of the singers market themselves. No surprise here.My listeners like her.

As a woman, 'you go girl,' she's not a size 2 and she's not 22, but she looks great and is non-apologetic. As a publicist, it's a no-brainer, no different than getting a high profile divorce or entering rehab-perhaps just less painful. As a jazz fan, its sad that this is what we've come to, imagine Ella having to resort to this to stay relevant?

Ever since Tommy Lipuma and WBR fashioned Krall as a sax kitten singing Jobim (visions of Krall walking a lonely beach in lingerie), she's bought into this crap. It's embarrassing, and does anyone really think she can sing? She's the master of the baritone grumble.

Mark Seliger is one of the great photographers of out time. Love his work. Saw Diana Krall in a store in Manhattan shopping. She's looks amazing in real life too. Harry Connick jr from time to time does the male version of sexy in some of his imagery. Both play great piano and sing well. Somewhat retro for my taste though...

You know, the sexpot thing never really bothered me about Diana Krall. That is usually imposed upon her. She does her homework and plays some decent piano, studied with Ray Brown, knows a lot of tunes. I find her singing style completely jive and un-emotional, and actually hard to listen to as she has trouble singing long phrases, and even phonating sometimes... she uses this rasp all the time that is particularly ill-advised.

T-Bone Burnett has almost never made a bad record, though, nor has Elvis Costello (to me), so this musical partnership (T-Bone, Elvis, Diana) is interesting to me, in that perhaps finally she'll make some music that sounds authentic and deeply-felt.

Coincidentally, I purchased the new Taylor Swift single "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" today. I already got my $1.29's worth out of it. When is this blog going to start talking about jazz again?